SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. KATHRYN A. PIPER 470 U.S. 274 (1985) CASE BRIEF

SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. KATHRYN A. PIPER

470 U.S. 274 (1985)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The Supreme Court of New Hampshire, challenged an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that affirmed the district court's finding that N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 42 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, 2. Piper (P) had been denied admittance to the state bar on residency grounds.

FACTS: Kathryn Piper lives in Vermont, about 400 yards from the New Hampshire border. In 1979, she applied to take the February, 1980, New Hampshire bar examination. Piper submitted with her application a statement of intent to become a New Hampshire resident. The Board of Bar Examiners found that Piper was of good moral character and met the other requirements for admission. She was allowed to take, and passed, the examination. Piper was informed by the Board that she would have to establish a home address in New Hampshire prior to being sworn in. Piper requested a dispensation from the residency requirement. Piper stated that her house in Vermont was secured by a mortgage with a favorable interest rate, and she and her husband recently had become parents. Her request was denied. She petitioned the New Hampshire Supreme Court for permission to become a member of the bar. She was denied. Piper filed this action in federal court alleging that Rule 42, that excludes nonresidents from the bar, violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, 2, of the United States Constitution. The District Court granted Piper's motion for summary judgment. It concluded that Piper had been denied a fundamental right in the absence of a 'substantial reason,' and that Rule 42 was not 'closely tailored' to achieve its intended goals. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Piper. They concluded that there was no 'substantial reason' for the different treatment of nonresidents and that the challenged discrimination bore no 'substantial relationship' to the State's objectives. The dissenting judges found that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's residency requirement did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. They found several 'substantial' reasons to justify discrimination against nonresidents in that 'large law firms in distant states' might exert significant influence over the state bar. These nonresident lawyers would be unfamiliar with local customs, and would be less likely to perform pro bono work within the State. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire filed a timely notice of appeal.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner